tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN November 27, 2013 12:00pm-2:01pm EST
outside of the u.s. china was number one. and this was before -- this was in english. so, that i think speaks very much to your thoughts. the possibility of our growth, the possibility of the value of the quality information that maybe they can't get in others or devices really speaks to the opportunity. >> there's a lot of people working on low-flying satellites and things that would actually increase the broadband capabilities and while they are going to come on line at the opportunity -- >> it just accelerates the integration of arthur talked about for storytelling purposes.
>> i wish that we had time to take all of the questions that we don't and so now i just want to introduce the third member it's great to be back here. we felt the warm invite from when we came especially alex and the team and at the kennedy school. go to the digital riptide if you can't remember that short url, go to the shorenstein site. you don't have to read it all. i promise you if you let these people speak for themselves, you will be engaged and you will
learn and if you are having insomnia trouble there are a couple that will put you to sleep, but i'm not going to tell you which ones those are. you have to hunt for those results. >> a nice discussion with riptide is meant to be back. but it wasn't a testament of the discussion and it's not a testament of the conclusion that we are not pessimistic about the future of news. so, certainly as we look back and think to people, we found that the truism that was the most true of course is what has already happened in the past. and we interviewed and pretty much agreed on what was clear. one was to be nostalgic. don't be nostalgic about what was lost. i don't think that you're nostalgic for what was because the truth is that it has been written into some of the 70,000 other articles by john talked about the journalism wasn't always great.
there were many incorrect stories and communities that were not covered at all for many voices that were not heard from. it's one of the things that we encountered even as we went to interview people and we didn't find the kind of diversity it wasn't in journalism before and it has exacerbated it in some ways and has improved it and so we were not just nostalgic about the past and there are great examples today. across the board a great journalism that even more illuminating online will get more voices. they hadn't given away the news for free. charles would have worked out okay for the long-term.
if hhe hadn't given it away fore online people with different models gave it away for free david is in the back if you need to string someone up, if you gave it away for free with a different business model and that is where the genie got out of the bottle and people have to react. the other thing that was so important and there was interesting vocabulary that i want to highlight tonight because he wouldn't have heard it in a panel like this and that was about the importance of engineers. so you heard about journalists and engineers sitting together in arthur said a highly engineered product referring to the need to know one of the things the news organizations didn't do and they seem to be learning now and must learn is the have to figure out how to hire them and collaborate with them because the people who have built the biggest platforms online today are engineers and most of th them that we have ons but they are in charge.
they didn't have them, they couldn't hire them and they certainly didn't put them in charge of that has to be a successful news online. so what is going to happen next, and how is serious journalism going to get paid for since the subsidy of advertising has been ripped away and we have gone activist from analog dollars to the expression of the digital bind? there are predictions about the future of news that some people agree with and we didn't have a full consensus either among the three of us which is why we built a web-based platform. we hope that others here at harvard pick up on it, that's more voices and interviews and stories get shared so we can keep documenting what's coming and what has happened. even since we finished our draft and went into postproduction to look at what's happened arthur sold the "boston globe" to john henry, the post was sold by the
grandstand company and more of this change is coming we are short of that. there is an aspect that is a tale which is no two people really agree on exactly what happened but we have a belief when we started and it was confirmed as we went but if you got enough of the right people who were involved in an event talking about it, you could get close enough to understand what happened and learn about what might happen next. we tried to do that in the project and we think it's important because understanding how journalism is going to continue and thrive we think is important and perfect the ideal that is embodied here in the kennedy for him at the kennedy school and assurance team center because the question that does hang out there and isn't answered tonight is are we going to find ways to cover the school board hearing and the bureau as
effectively as the digital world has already figured out how to cover celebrity gossip, the daily political rant in washington and even the weather. so on behalf of martin and john and myself, we absolutely agree that the story ahead is good to be far more interesting than the story that he told, so we hope that you will stay tuned to what we have done in this evolving thread. thank you very much and have a great evening. [applause]
washington says i know exactly where they are coming back to new york. so we come back to new york city and he knows he can't face them and beat them head to head so he's got to use espionage and guerrilla warfare and you have to be able to anticipate that. he needs his own cia and then he's got this huge background. he went out of his way to brush up on his skills so he tells college and others in the general scott, brigadier general scott, it is what we need. you have to find these people to help me out.
with $100,000 in total prizes at the deadline is january 20. get more information at studentcam.org. and now the head of the environmental protection agency, gina mccarthy, testified before a house panel about agency transparency into the use of science and regulatory decisions. before taking over in july, ms. mccarthy served in the epa office of air and radiation. from capitol hill, this is about two and a half hours. >> the committee on science and technology will come to order.
welcome to everyone to today's hearing entitled strengthening transparency and accountability within the environmental protections agency. going to recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement and then i will recognize the ranking member for hers. the environmental protection agency, like every other governmental institution, should answer to the american people. everyone agrees we need to protect the environment but we should do so in a way that is open and honest. democracy requires transparency and accountability. yet the epa justifications for the regulations are cloaked in secret science. it appears that the pa and the law and strengthens the science suggested by its own objectives. americans impacted by the agency's regulations have the right to see the data and determine for themselves independently if these regulations are based on sound science or a partisan agenda. the efforts to expand its
regulatory reach across the u.s. represent a troubling trend. for example, take the epa attempt to redefine its jurisdiction into the clean water act. it seeks to expand the definition of waters of the u.s. to give the agency unprecedented new authority over private property. according to the media reports this expansion of the regulatory power could include almost all man-made and natural streams, lakes and ponds. this undermines the states rights and increases federal control to private property and could lead to the epa telling us what to do in our own backyard. the efforts to demonize hydraulic fracturing are another example of an agency implementing a partisan agenda before it takes the time to get the facts. the epa made claims of groundwater contamination but was forced to retract the claims when it could produce no evidence. perhaps the most worrisome examples of the agency's disregard for transparency and accountability are found in the
epa clean air program. we all agree that ensuring clean air is essential that the epa has a responsibility to establish rules that balance environmental concerns and our economic needs. nearly all of this administration's air quality regulations are justified on the basis of hidden data. these regulations cost billions of dollars, but the epa claims the benefit of the rules justify the cost. these claims cannot be verified if the epa uses secret science. more than two years ago before this committee, the assistant administrator mccarthy said this information was available for independent review and verification and a few months ago the president's own a science advisothescience advisoe position. when the epa failed to live up to the commitments they issued a subpoena requiring them to produce the data. three months later the agency still hasn't provided the data necessary to verify the claims.
it's the responsibility to ensure the science that uses is transparent and that the claims can be verified independently. recently the epa provided copies of letters it received explaining why the belief that data cannot be reused in the public. it's unfortunate that it took two years and a subpoena to get here is now eve now even the epe truth. the agency itself cannot publicly verify its own claims. so not only do we have a lack of transparency, we have an agency regulating without the fact to back up its claims. we need to know whether the agency is telling the truth to the american people. the epa must make it public or commit to no longer using secret to support its regulations. without this the congress would have no choice to prohibit the use of secret data moving forward.
i will introduce legislation that will stop the epa from basing regulations on the undisclosed and unverified information. we can and should continue to look for ways to protect our environment for the transparency based on sound science. only then can the american people decide whether the cost of the epa regulatory agenda is supported by the facts. that concludes my statement and the ranking member gentleman from texas is recognized for her opening statement. >> thank you very much and good morning. i'm very pleased to welcome the administrator mccarthy to these hearings. she's had a distinguished record of the environmental protection agency prior to her being selected. she's been doing a inexorably jb since assuming the position.
i thought it was important to review commission of the agency. first the mission of the epa is to protect human health and the environment. as someone that worked on public health i can think of no mission of the federal government that is more important or noble than that. as a member of congress i think i should be doing all i can to encourage the epa as an attempt to carry out a challenging mission. i think too often the pa has made a target for funding cuts and its leadership subjected to the arrest and denigration. mr. chairman, i am a texan from birth to death i'm a texan and i am no stranger to the oreo and gas industries and economic benefits they can bring. or to the pollution and health
and environment or impact that they can also bring. i know the epa actions have consequences sometimes negative. i also know that the epa actions have important consequences for health of our constituents. especially those who are young or elderly. and those consequences have been very positive indeed over the 40 years has been in existence we all want a healthy economy but we also want a healthy quality-of-life. and the epa efforts have played a critical role in achieving both of these goals since its inception. as members of congress i think that we should strive to educate our constituents, not scare them. i hope today that i can resist the temptation to try for provocative soundbites from the district and instead use today's
hearings to understand what the epa has been tasked to accomplish what it's doing on those and how we in congress helped it to do its job more effectively. administer -- administrator mccarthy i want to commend you for your willingness in spite of all of the hurdles you and your agency face. i look forward to your testimony and working with you to help the epa achieve the goals that the nation has asked as they carry out. thank you and i yield back. >> members who have opening statements can submit them for the record and they will appear at this point. our witness is the honorable gina mccarthy, administrator of the environmental protection agency. prior to her appointment as administrator she was the assistant administrator for the office of air and radiation where she advocated to protect public health and the environment.
during her career, which spans over 30 years, she worked for both of the state and local levels on environmental issues and help coordinate policies on economic growth, energy, transportation and the environment. administrator mccarthy received a bachelors of arts and social anthropology from the university of massachusetts and a masters of science and environmental health engineering and planning from tufts university three at this time i will yield to gentle womathegentleman from connecticr additional comments. >> thank you jermaine smith and ranking member johnson for holding today's hearing on the environmental protection agency. i'm very pleased to welcome administrator gina mccarthy who serves as commissioner of connecticut's department of environmental protection and then as assistant administrator of the u.s. epa. administrator mccarthy, it's wonderful to see you again. congratulations on your confirmation. you have an important role and responsibility as the head of an agency charged with protecting the environment and the public
health. i appreciate all of your hard work and we are very proud of you and pleased to see you here today. >> thank you. administrator mccarthy we welcome your testimony. please, proceed. >> good morning, ranking member -- i'm so sorry. good morning, chairman smith and ranking member johnson, other distinguished members of the committee. i am pleased to be here to talk about the central role that science plays at the united states environmental protection agency. let me begin by stating that science is and always has been the backbone of the epa's decision-making. the agency's ability to pursue its mission to protect public health and the environment depends on the integrity of the science upon which it relies. i firmly believe that environmental policy decisions, guidance and regulations that impact the lives of the americans must be grounded at
the most fundamental level in science and high quality transparent science. because we rely so heavily to the commission on behalf of the american people, it must be conducted in ways that are transparent that's free from bias and conflict of interest and of the highest quality integrity it could ability. these are important not just within our own organization and the federal government, but across the scientific community with its long-established and highly honorable commitment to maintaining strict adherence to the ethical investigation and research. that's why the agency has established and embraced a scientific integrity policy that builds upon existing agency and governmentwide policies and guidance documents explicitly outlining the epa commitment to the highest standards of the scientific integrity. that commitment extends to any scientist or organization who wishes to contribute to our
efforts. the funded research project was conducted by epa scientists or outside guarantees of collaborators must comply with the agency's rigorous quality assurance requirements to ensure that we have the best possible science, we have committed through rigorous independent review of the scientific data, the models i and the analysis tt support the decision. the peer review can take a member of the forms ranging from external reviews by the national academy of sciences or the epa federal websites are a committee to contract the coordinated reviews. consistent with the guidance we required the peer review of all research projects and for all influential scientific and information and highly influential scientific assessments. among the external advisory committee is the epa science advisory board. we review groups of independent
bond epa scientists with a range of expertise required for that particular advisory topic. we invite the public to nominate experts for the panels and to comment on the candidates being considered by the -- by the atp eight for sab panels. we evaluate public information submitted about the epa nominees. the review experts confidential financial information is available to ensure that there are no conflicts of interest. sab reviews are conducted in public sessions and in compliance with the open government requirements of the federal advisory committee act. the public is invited to provide written testimony for the consideration. public comments help to ensure that all relevant science and technical issues are available as it reviews the science that will support our environmental
decisions. how well we do science and maintain integrity as the scientific advisory committee which provides independent advice to the administrator on the science that supports the national air quality standards. the case act reviews the epa integrated science assessment which delivers science in support of the clean air act. through the transparent and open process we've also committed to enhancing the agency's integrated risk information system assessment program. a strong scientifically rigorous program is of critical importance in the epa is in the process of enhancing the scientific integrity of those assessments enhancing productivity of the programs and increasing transparency. so the issues are identified and early on in the process. in 2009 they made enhancements
by a sentence of this has been developed and process. since this time, the national research council has made recommendations related to enhancing the development of the iris assessments. the epa is making changes still to the iris program to enhance our ability to respond to those recommendations and maintain our science integrity. these changes will help dpa produce high-quality assessments each year in a timely and transparent manner to meet the needs of the agency and of the public. a newly released report is largely supportive of the end hands approach that the epa is taking to develop the assessment in this case for inorganic arsenic. as i mentioned in my opening statement, mr. chairman, science is the backbone of our decision-making and our work is based on the principles of science integrity and transparency that have expected
and deserved by american people. i'm proui am proud of the reseah efforts into the sound use of science and technology to fulfill the important mission to protect public health and safeguard the environment. i want to thank you for the opportunity to meet with the committee and provide testimony and i'm happy to answer any questions that you might have. >> thank you administrator. i recognize myself for some questions. first, when you testified before the committee in september of 2011, you promised to provide the data behind the epa health benefit claims yet to my knowledge you hadn't done that if the agency continues to justify the major regulations based upon the studies and you've given some information but do you agree that the information you have given us so far is insufficient to validate these findings? >> my understanding is that we
have submitted information that you requested -- >> i don't deny that that is the information sufficient to validate the findings that you have come to? >> it is sufficient to understand the -- >> i know it's sufficient to understand but can we validate it? sufficient to validate independently the findings that you have concluded. >> it is to rely on the peer review. >> that isn't to say that we get a letter saying that it wasn't sufficient so you might want to check with other individuals in the epa who haven't gotten sufficient information to validate the findings. >> if you are looking to replicate the studies i would agree with you that all of that information is not available to the agency. but we have sought to get that information and provided that information. >> i will make that statement again.
it's not sufficient to validate the findings. if we go onto my nex on to my n. the epa is seeking to change its ozone standards and the agency admits it could be the most expensive in history perhaps exceeding the cost of $100 billion to the american people. will you commit to not rely on secret science and hitting data in the rulemaking for the standards, in other words will you make the underlining data public? >> the committee that we rely on as a peer review entity to take a look at the national air quality standards ensures that we make our information publicly available and transparency. >> the information will be made publicly available. >> the same way that we've done it before mr. chairman. we are very public -- suite. >> i'm wondering if it is great b. made public. >> we rely on thousands of
september 20 so we could make sure we looked at confidentiality and privacy. >> thank you. will epa produce all of its correspondence with outside entities regarding efforts to comply with the subpoena? this would include e-mails, text, and other electronic communications? >> i believe i'm responding to that today, tricky. if you have further questions and you don't believe it's adequate we will get step together. >> otherwise you will save us from going to the freedom of information act and going to that correspondence, greg? >> we respond to a number of freedom of information act request. >> don't confuse the issue. you're going to give us the correspondence that you have engaged in with a third party to try to get them to comply with the subpoena? >> we're going to respond to your request for that i believe today. >> thank you for that. my last question is the epa has a draft clea draft clean water e
debt to gdp unprecedented authority over private property. the law clearly states that at a time such a proposal is sent to other federal agencies it must be made available to epa science advisory board. for peer review. in september epa senate a proposal to omb for review but according to your sap the draft has not been made available to the board. why didn't you comply with this requirement before opposing the rule? >> tried to i want to assure you that we are going to be and we are complying with our statutory obligations. what you're referring to is a rule that is very, very early in the process. >> you submitted it and you've got to submitted to your science advisory board and that hasn't been done yet. >> we have a process that's established at epa for how we communicate with the science advisory board on those issues. it's a process that we have
agreed to speak at the submissions are supposed to be concurrent and yet you submitted the rule to me but not to the science advisory board. are expecting to do that immediately? >> again the science advisory board right now has an opportunity look at the science that would underpin that rule but we're very early on in the process and will make sure -- >> regardless of where you aren't in the process the law says you to submit to your advisory board at the same time be given to other agencies it oo have it done and i'm wondering why. >> it's not a question that we haven't done. it's a question that we have a process in place -- >> so you have submitted the rules to the advisory board? >> as far as i know i don't believe the advisory board has the rule but we're very early in the process. unfortunately, you may have it and they are likely to have as well because it's been publicly released but -- >> there is a lot decisions post-incident today and
immediately and you haven't done that and that's not following the proper process. >> mr. chairman, i'm happy to supply you with the articulated process that we use to comply with that but -- >> the process is very clear because the process requires by law but you're not following at this point and i hope you will. that concludes my questions, and ranking member is recognized borders. >> -- for hearst. thank you very much. i'm a little confused myself. i've seen stacks can huge stacks of interest that have been submitted. and i don't know what's missing that you have access to that has been requested. do you understand what's being requested? >> we believe that we do and we believe that we have complied with those requests to the best of our ability.
epa has provided thousands of pages of material that's been requested of us and we've done it because we agree with this committee and its mission to ensure that we have sound science and transparency. that is the commitment of this agency and we will fulfill that commitment. >> well, thank you. i'm really trying to follow the line of question of the chair to understand exactly what the real problem is. how do you enter -- interpret what the questions have been for your understanding, and what else do you think that can happen, that we can given? >> we have provided information. when we do rulemaking like national indian air quality standards, we look at the thousands of peer-reviewed studies that are available to
us. we also find studies ourselves. we conduct studies ourselves. when we funded the studies and information and data we gather to fund those we have to make sure now under the shelby amendment that that underlying data is available to us. we have done that but there is much information that we look at that's peer-reviewed literature which is really how science works, ranking member, is that we rely on rigorous peer-reviewed data. epa looks at that to make sure it's been peer-reviewed before we rely on it, but we don't have the wealth of data underneath all of the thousands of studies. but clearly, researchers including epa can enter into agreements to gather that data but much of the incident being confidential or private. we have obligations under other statutes as well as omb guidance to protect that privacy. in the case of the national air quality data come with the data
on death. we don't have available to us with a full breath of raw data is the data which follows individuals. so when we have that data we have to protect it. but we don't need to see the wealth of raw data under every study to know that it's been rigorously peer-reviewed and we can rely on it for our decision-making. >> has there ever been a time when congress has requested raw data that exist? >> we did actually pay some are questioning frankly about the exact same issues, the pm studies, the particulate matter studies from harvard university and from american cancer society. we were asked similar questions back in the early 90s is my understanding, and we funded through a contractor 30 researchers to look for three
years at all of that underlying data. they had available to it because they could enter into a confidential contract with the researchers to access that data so that private information was protected. they did a completely analysis of that data and the methodologies used and they came out with the same types of conclusions. so we have verified even with that underlying data available that these are studies that can be relied on. these are, in fact, studies that the world relies on. not just epa. they are well done, credible, and they have not changed their methodology substantially since the last time we even look at the raw data. so we are very confident in the underlying science. and that we have done the right thing and paid attention to that which is what epa is supposed to do. >> thank you very much. i yield. >> think you, ms. johnson. the gentleman from wisconsin,
former chairman of this committee, mr. sensenbrenner, is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. ms. mccarthy, on june 27, 2012, you sent a letter to me relative to the issues of ethanol and the waiver on the 15. i asked a question does the epa remain confident that it will not damage car engines from vehicles of model years 2001 and later. the letter you signed responded, the epa remains confident in the technical basis for the east 15 partial waiver decision. this question can be answered simply yes or no. you remain confident in the technical basis for the e-15 decision? >> i do. >> is what others are saying. forbes said, for doesn't support the introduction into the market place for the legacy fuel. ford has not approved in the owner's manual is considered in its fueling and any damage
resulting from this who fueling is not covered by the wealthy. mercedes-benz, any ethanol plant a bug he can including a 15 can be 15 will harm in mission control systems in mercedes-benz engines creating significant problems. honda, vehicle engines were not designed or built to accommodate higher concentrations of ethanol. there appears to be the potential for engine failure. the aaa, aaa's automotive engineering experts have reviewed the velvet research and believe that additional assessment is warranted to more fully document to what extent the sustained use of e-15 in both newer or older vehicles to cause significant problems such as accelerated engine where, fuel system damage and false check engine lights. and the coast guard, increasing the blend the e-15 can be expected to exacerbate any fuel
systems deterioration now being reported with e-10 blend gasoline. fuel leaks cause at unacceptable risk of fire and explosion. now, my question to you is, are the auto manufactures, the aaa, the small engine makers, and the u.s. coast guard wrong? how can the epa continue to ignore these concerns? >> congressman, i am not going to speak to their issues that, particularly the car manufacturers might have relative to their liability and warranty considerations. what i can tell you is that epa with d.o.e. gave extensive testing of e-15 on cars. we understand that there are challenges prior to 2001, which is when some new, more robust engines were acquired in the sequels. we have done extensive testing. we continue to believe that e-15
is appropriate. and if the were available it would be being used by individuals for vehicles that are 2001 and younger. >> well, that's not what the manufacturers say. that's not what the aaa says. they don't make cars. they represent motorists interest. that's the even with the coast guard says. because we're getting with small engines, including marine engines, lawn mowers, snowmobiles and things like that -- >> congressman -- >> i'm going to ask you a question. i'm going to ask you a question. i have a limited amount of time. you will make a very good senator if you'd like to filibuster. i have a bill that this committee has reported favorably out requires the national academies of science to conduct an unbiased assessment of the science surrounding e-15. there seems to be in of questions relating the epa's conclusions on this.
so why don't you support further testing of e-15? why are you opposed to having an unbiased referee making a call on this fuel? >> i don't recall that i've spoken to this issue. epa -- >> will you support my bill for more testing on this issue? >> i'm sorry. i have not read the bill. but -- >> the bill has been around for a long time because it was sponsored in response to your letter where there's a disagreement on whether the epa has conducted unbiased research. how about having another look at this before people's engines get wrecked? >> additional research that's incredibly and transparent is always welcomed. >> fine. i would appreciate a letter from the epa and from you supporting my bill and then maybe we can put it on the floor. >> but i do feel we have sufficiently done our analysis, and i can't -- >> and i guess having an unbiased view is something that
you won't always support. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. account the woman from oregon is recognized the question. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and thank you, administrator mccarthy, for every divorce today. the work that you do to protect the health of our constituents is very important, and very much appreciated. i want to briefly mention the epa's work on the portland harbor superfund site, an issue that's been important for years in the district i represent him in the region, but one might think we can all agree the work has not progressed as expeditiously as it should. when i met with you in april of this year to discuss the issue you had yet to be confirmed as administrator but we still a very productive conversation, and i want to say encouraging conversation about increased cooperation between the epa headquarters, the oregon congressional delegation and you also expressed an interest in improving the relationship
between the epa region 10 and a local stakeholders. so far i've seen positive signs of that happening and i wanted to say that i look forward to working with you and epa to we'll finally take care of that superfund site in the portland harbor. so thank you for your work on that. >> thank you spent on the topic of epa protecting public health, you focus on how important it is that good science be used to determine when public health is in danger. after all, that's one of the peace critical mission. and in the first hearing held by the environmental subcommittee has been anything held by environmental subcommittee earlier this year, a look at the state of the environment, one witness said that looking to close at a problem could overestimate the need for a solution. he said when one puts anything under a microscope one necessary will find something ugly to gawk at. when considering public health it's hard to imagine that the something a small or microscopic
it should not be evaluated to determine its impact on public health. shirley our constituents can be harmed by pollutants that they cannot see. can you talk about the process that epa goes through to determine when a problem is severe enough to address through federal action? i want to have enough time for another question. >> we address the science in many different ways, depending upon what we are actually focusing on and where our authorities life. epa doesn't agree with the statement that says that we shouldn't be focused on both our mission as well as appropriately doing our job that congress gave us. we look at both doing independent reviews of the science. we do that rigorously. we do it to something we call the iris process which i mentioned earlier which is really a health assessment that underpins many of the decisions
we do that helps us understand what the science implications are, what the health applications are for people that are exposed to chemicals and other hazards in the environment. it's extremely important for us to look at those issues. then we look at what authorities congress has given us, what responsibility we have and we address those in the way in which congress gave us to address those. that is how we make improvements in public health. that's how we've successfully done that for almost 43 years. >> in march of this year the environment subcommittee hearing on epa science advisory boards and since then the committe cans passed legislation modifying the make up of those boards and throughout the process some on this committee have asserted industry voices are not represented and academic interests dominate and others of us acknowledge that industry perspective should be heard but we are concerned about making sure we don't have conflicts of interest. you discuss this a bit in your opening testimony but will you
please expand on that industry science my country but to the science advisory board while also avoiding topics of interest? and how do you as administrator ensure the device you're receiving him those bodies are not tainted with policy related judgments? >> the science advisory board, we believe that epa meet and exceed our responsibilities. our legal requirements, and we are more transparent and we look more closely so that we can make sure that we look at the ethics and government act as well. the science advisory board in our press -- processor can do. with -- when we get panels and we put them together, we publish our consideration for who the panel members should be. we as asked for comments on tha. we respond to that. we look at making sure that the panels we put together our well-balanced and that they have all of the range of expertise we are looking for as well as a variety of perspectives.
>> can you discuss the conflict of interest issue? i want to make sure we get that in. >> we actually look very closely a conflict of interest which we look at both whether or not there are financial problems that are real or the appearance is there and we make sure we do a thorough analysis of both any investment opportunities were financial considerations. we've just recently established a new process where w we're looking at that as well more rigorously to external contractors as well. we look at issues whether perceived or real. we do them publicly, transparently. we take comments every step of the way to make sure our panel has the expertise as well as the credibility it needs to speak from a sound science and transparency perspective. >> thank you very much. i see my time has expired. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman from california, the vice chairman of this committee is recognized for his questions. >> thank you very much, mr.
chairman. and just following up on my colleague from oregon's line of questioning, and i appreciate you being with us here today. about the science advisory boa board, and there is series concern that the epa's regulatory science has become somewhat of a closed loop that the agency sets regulatory goals based on whatever motives those goals are based upon, and then develops the funds and the science that it needs to justify those goals. the agency then creates its own regulations and is solely responsible for interpreting those regulations. making matters even worse, the courts largely defer to the epa, especially when questions involve the analysis of science. therefore, the most critical
requirement for america to trust this regulation policy -- predatory policy or system -- regulatory policy or system, the regulations that are set forth by epa is scientific integrity. unfortunately, as i say, there are worries, at least i believe that there seems to be some very serious reasons for being worried about this being a closed loop. a closed loop is not going to give us a type of science that we need. we believe, especially this is evident in a matter that you were just discussing with my colleague from oregon, the independent peer review of epa's science. we believe, and i would like to ask a few questions about whether or not this has been compromised.
you are responsible for appointing members of the epa scientific advisory boards, and let's take a look. science advisory board such as, number one, the science advisory board and the clean air. number two, the clean air science advisory committee. you have called these panels in the pendant review boards. and your predecessor described him as being made up totally independent expert scientists. that's pretty well -- do you agree with acknowledging that still which are goal is and what you're trying to get? i would like to put into the record some information prepared by the congressional research service that calls into serious question the independence of the experts that sit on these committees. >> without objection it will be made a part of the record. >> according to the crs, almost
60% of the members of these two panels have received epa grants since 2000. that's totaling taxpayer-funded grants worth roughly $140 million. perhaps even worse, a majority of the members of the clean air science advisory committee, the panel tasked with critically evaluating the epa's articulate matter standards finalized at the end of 2012 had received -- so a majority had received epa grants directly related to particulate matter since 2010. so you have someone investigating or passing judgment on things that they themselves have been given grants and been involved in the research they are supposedly overseeing.
the administrator in the past we have for epa witnesses express a point of view that scientists who have received epa grants are somewhat immune from any potential conflicts associated with these grants are future grants. do you consider that the recipient of epa grants, do you consider that someone has been involved have a grant and done a study by something this post can now review, and that would compromise that person's ability to have an independent judgment? >> no. not in and of itself, as long as we have procedures to ensure that they are fair-minded, that they are there because of their expertise -- >> fair-minded just means they don't have any bias -- you were trying to say that somebody has already been given a grant that has reached conclusions is
someone we can entrust to have an unbiased view after we paid them in order to have advised you? >> thank you we understand that there've been concerns expressed about that. we also understand that others have expressed concern about having people who are in an industry that we are discussing -- >> that's correct. you think government employees are immune from the same sort of bias that you would find -- >> no. i'm not saying they're immune. i'm saying we have a process in which we rigorously pursue those issues to ensure that they are there to represent their expertise, and that the panel is balanced, fair. it meets our requirements, ethical requirements and speech the question isn't balance. the question is whether there are members who are involved, sometimes at very high levels, and guiding the direction of those panels who actually have a built-in bias in that they have already been granted grants to
make a conclusion before you now are asking them for an unbiased conclusion. and, in fact, sometimes, administrator, they are asked to give assessments of their own work of -- in other words, we are now paying someone to give an unbiased assessment of something that is his or her work. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized for his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank you for coming to take our questions. i've got a question regarding epa funding and prioritization. i represent the sixth district of washington state which is boarded by the pacific ocean in puget sound and also includes some of the most pristine natural areas in the country. i want to commend the work of your agency and all of our federal agencies in the state of washington for some of the work that's been done to protect our resources, but there's a lot
more to be done. osha certification, storm water runoff, ecosystem restoration are just a few of the issues that we are only beginning to understand not to mention the effects that these issues have on our marine industries and on the puget sound economy. faced with this task, myself and represented and other conscript the puget sound recovery caucus together and support you can't figure out what we can do on a federal level to solve these direct problems that we're facing in puget sound and also have to be proactive in issues that are just beginning to emerge. with a limited federal budget and sequestration, receiving funding for these types of vital problems is an uphill battle. we are still climbing and we need to continue decline. not just because it affects our environment but because it affects jobs and our economy. i realize the issues that we face in puget sound are similar to many other issues across the
nation and we want to find ways to not only highlight puget sound but we want to make progress and get projects on the ground and fix the problems we need to ensure the vitality of puget sound not just now but into the future. first in imitation and a few questions. i would like to invite your partnership with our caucus. i would love to invite you to meet with our members and meet with the folks are working on this in our state. my questions are, can you give insights into how we can actually make progress, particularly in light of this budget environment? haiku we can fast-track where the scientists clear the need is clear and we need to start making some progress? >> i do hope that the indiscriminate way that sequestration has impacted all of the agencies is something that is looked at in the upcoming budget discussions so that everybody can agree in a more sensible and commonsense
way. to make any reductions that are necessary and intimate the budget effectively. i do know that we have folks who are working in this area and you probably know dennis mclaren. there's nobody in the world that knows more about the issues that you just identified than he does. i do think there are ways in which we can work together through a variety of shared technical expertise, as was potential grant funding. we work on those issues together. i had an opportunity over the next few years to make sure we enhance those partnerships. so i would be looking forward to a discussion about how best to do it. >> great. thank you very much, and i yield back. >> the gentleman from texas, the chairman emeritus of this committee, mr. holcomb is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. mccarthy, i thank you for being here today and the committee's work for several years to ensure sound scientific
process is transparency at the epa. i think we need a study on the epa's lack of transparency and accountability sometimes. and you would be one of the witnesses that we would want you back again. one of the areas of concern is the ep is very poor track record of signs relating to hydraulic fracking. the epa is zero for three on that. in texas and pennsylvania, and wyoming. u.n. agency alleged hydraulic fracking -- at three times the agency had to back away from these allegations after proper scientific analysis and review exposed these to be totally unfounded. we've had a number of regulators and scientists testify where you sit debate about how hydraulic fracking. you've also testified in the energy commerce committee.
nearly all of those that have set forth have confirmed the safety of these unconventional oil and gas take makes, and if there had been any incident of groundwater contamination from fracking, not one. we've also received testimony from both the president's science adviser as was the presidents assistant secretary sitting right where you are under the oath that you've taken for the department of energy said that there has not been a single document case of groundwater contamination from fracking in this country. you probably won't be surprised that a reference once again a comment you made in 2011 that itu chance to take back. i've not seen where you make any apologies for it when you said, and i hope you backed off those remarks since then. you said i certainly don't want to give the impression that epa is in the business to create jobs. a cruel statement i think to those families who can't support their children are can't make a car payment.
because according to 112 study by the research company ihs global, by investor's business daily, it's estimated 1.7 million jobs in the united states. that number is projected to go to 3.5 million jobs by 2035. according to the energy information administration natural gas production is expected to rise an estimated 44%. without the use of hydraulic fracking technology, the nation's energy security and economic, or economy would scarcely be compromise and those millions of jobs would be lost. with that in mind, you state a reason and an interview with "the boston globe" that quote there's nothing inherently dangerous in fracking that sound engineering practices can't accomplish. so did agree that hydraulic fracking is safe invest there's not been a single documented case of groundwater contamination from fracking?
yes or no? >> i can't answer that way. >> if you can't answer that way you don't know or you refuse to answer. >> know. i met up would like to explain a little bit if speed i'm not asking for you expedition. i'm asking for a yes or no. >> i do not know of a documented case spent i'll take that as you don't know or you don't care. because you did know and you didn't care about people having jobs back then. that was a terrible statement spent actually it was taken out of context. >> it was not taken out of context. i read it exactly out of c.r. and you know that. why don't you admit it? >> it was actually celebrating the fact that we've been successful in reducing environmental pollution while -- >> let me go on. so you agree that hydraulic fracking is safe. do you agree to that? >> i cannot agree. >> okay. you haven't agree. these experts who testified, state regulators have expertise,
competence and expense necessary to oversee hydraulic fracking. do you agree the state regulators are generally quite knowledgeable about local geologic conditions in the drilling operations the oversee? yes or no? >> i believe they are knowledgeable and often seek epa's technical advice. >> your answer to that is just. do you think epa is better suited to regulate hydraulic fracking operations the state regulators who are already doing so, yes or no? >> i believe that with water quality, the state is the line a first offense and epa -- >> i'm not asking you for -- >> i'm asking for a yes or no. [talking over each other] >> maybe i can't understand anything you say because you are hard to believe, ma'am. do you believe that natural gas prices will remain low is epa promulgates regulations that restrict production, yes or no? >> i actually think that a large component of the nation's energy
security relies on the safe and responsible government of oil and natural gas. >> our nation depends on and all-of-the-above energy strategy and use of technologies like hydraulic fracking have been in a portal in helping achieve energy security. and not deter these efforts. spent and i would hope not. >> i yield back my time, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, administrator mccarthy. connecticut has been a beneficiary of substantial improvements to health through the clean air act. and so i would like you to talk a little bit about the situation at the many utilities have already installed pollution control devices on the facility. is epa at this time were to go back on clean air regulations governing these utilities, would they have an incentive to run these pollution control devices? what would be the associate and
vote on air quality and public health particularly for those of us who sit on the eastern seaboard who went west to east winds are the recipient of what is burned in indiana, ohio and elsewhere? >> we note even with the control equipment working that the power sector remains the largest single stationary source sector in terms of the amount of pollution that it in its. we have been working hard with them but there's no question that there is financial incentives to bypass equipment when it's available to be done. so wide as soon that if we were to pull back on our regulations what you're going to see is increased emission. that increased emission results directly in public health impacts that are as severe as thousands of premature deaths. >> i know in our own state we've seen those asthma rates rise very substantially in our cities and those are caused by murder by state governments that will
have to be picked up -- >> and many pollution that comes me from facilities run very far away. >> exactly. if we could turn to the scientific review process. certainly we've heard some commentary today and elsewhere from members of congress who have stated that or suggested that epa develops regulations based on faulty scientific evidence. can you explain to us in a little more detail, and i'll ask my question and then listen, how the scientific process that underpins epa's regulations is peer-reviewed? but deeply to be importance of peer-reviewed process, flush that out a little more for us. >> the process we use is to establish peer-reviewed panels. we can do them by seeking advice from the national academies of science. we can establish it to our science advisory board. we can use consultants that follow similar processes and establish again transparent,
robust, balanced to review. the science advisory board is a highly transparent, professional entity where we comply with those regulation. we also comply with ethics requirements. we follow all of the guidance that's given to us in the directed by the office of management and budget and how to do our work. i believe that we are a model for transparency, solid, high quality science. the clean air act, science advisor to me was mention. that committee was recently looked at by our own ig, our office of inspector general, who just issued a report commending us for how solid our panel was and our ability to have that balanced and appropriate. we are always working to enhance that but i'm incredibly proud of the science agencies relies on and i know the high quality of
our science is what is going to keep epa relevant and make us and allow us to do the right thing in terms of meeting our mission which is public health projection. >> and if i may, i'm shuttling between hearings, and currently in the transportation and infrastructure hearing we are talking about the cost of sandy, and the underwater rail lines in the state of connecticut and newark, new jersey, the impact of the severe weather systems that we see. could you talk a little bit about how in epa other than the curbing of greenhouse gas emissions what do the work epa is doing to look at the scientific but also the very real economic impact like we are seeing from climate change and severe weather conditions. >> congresswoman, in 2012 they costs associated with disaster response top $120 billion.
that's not planned expenses. that's what happens. what we know is that in the face of a change in climate these types of disasters are going to become more and more prevalent if we don't reduce greenhouse gases. if you look at the work that this agency, we have not only been funding efforts at the local level and the state level to look at how you can add that to a changing climate, we have put out a plan that requires and chose a pathway forward to epa to look at how it does its paces working with the communities. so we look at a changing climate and we factor that into our decision-making and our ability to work more carefully and collaboratively with local communities and states moving forward. and my heart goes out to connecticut. i know it was very hard hit and it is my home away from home spent thank you for your service and i yield back. >> the gentleman from texas is recognized for his questions spent thank you, mr. chairman.
ms. mccarthy, thank you for appearing before this hearing today. >> thanks for inviting me. >> i have several questions, so easy to keep your answers very short and direct. as you know setting the level for the new source standard, the clean air act requires you to select the best system of emission reduction for technology that has been adequately demonstrated. we've had several hearings in this committee on the new standards where we heard testimony whether the ccs technology necessary to meet these standards has actually been adequately demonstrated. at the full-scale power plants. i've asked your colleagues from the department of energy on a number of occasions if they could give me examples of where full-scale power plants are located, and their testimony is none of them are operating anywhere in the world. if this is true that full-scale power plants operating now, are
not operating with the ccs technology, how can you say that it's been radicall adequate dem? >> we believe that ccs technology is, has been adequate demonstrated. the technology is proven. it's available. in fact, the coal technologies and facilities that you see being constructed today are actually being -- are actually utilizing ccs. >> can you provide me an example of a full-scale powerplant is coming operating with this technology? >> i can give yo you examples oo the 35% compared and an example of others that are coming up. that also in the planning stages. so ccs -- >> so what would those be rex what would those be? >> we have the camper facility. that's a 75% complete and there is another project in canada that's also utilizing, at levels much higher than the types of reductions that epa has but those.
>> are any of those facilities that you mentioned receiving funding, clean coal, power initiative funding? >> is my understanding that there have been, that there has been funding supported by d.o.e. dob continued to funding available for these types of projects. >> so they are receiving clean coal power initiative funding? >> yes, that's my understanding. >> it's kind of interesting then because the energy policy act of 2005 clear he states that projects receiving funding from this program can't be used to print technology is adequately demonstrated. so the examples that you were using, are receiving funding, and the 2005 acta says you can't use those. so can you explain how your logic is on that? >> actually, i think we are regulating and proposing this regulation under the clean air act which is very specific in
both its intent as well as its history of application. there is no question that ccs technology is available. exponents at ccs have been in place and demonstrated for decades. so the question really is, is it reasonable in cost and isn't available for this sector? epa believes it is. we have proposed that. we are welcome and open to comments. we will be getting to the public comment process shortly i think through the public comment process using this technology is well known. it's available. is being invested in today and it's going to work and it's going to be a pathway forward for coal into the future. >> to summarize what you said is, one, there's no full-scale power plants operating with this technology today, correct? >> i'm aware of these components being -- >> i didn't say components. but there's no full-scale power
plants operating with these -- >> no. but the ones being -- >> okay. and then you using federally funded ccs projects to argue technology is adequately demonstrated, yet the 2002 act prohibit you from doing that. >> actually we think it has been adequately demonstrated, but the support of -- >> but not on a full-scale basis, right? >> we have it on full-scale in other applications. other -- >> but not on these -- >> it's only, it is being invested in today into facilities of 75% completed and on their way. >> but what you're saying on these new rules that no new coal plants can be built without utilizing this technology and we don't know that it's adequately demonstrated for these plants because we don't have a full-scale model. >> we believe it has been adequately demonstrated. >> but not on a full-scale model. >> it's been fully utilize and other industry sectors.
>> but not on these coal plants. not on full-scale coal plants? >> i have already indicated to you, we know of two that are being constructed today, and they aren't -- >> but they're being constructed but we don't have any history that that technology is, one, will accomplish that but secondly, it makes a kind of cost-benefit analysis, do we? >> the cost-benefit analysis, is that what we're talking about? >> no. but that would be a part of it. you don't have come you don't know for sure because you don't have a model for the technology. >> but we do know the industry sees ccs technology as a pathway forward. we also see it as one that's available to it and one that we are hoping with of the we assistance it will continue to progress. it will get less and less expensive. that's a technology gets developed. in this case all of the components of the ccs as well as those together has been demonstrated over and over as
being viable and effective and we believe that they will be the path forward for coal. coal is a big part of our energy supply. i know it's going to continue to be a big part of our energy supply. we've tried very hard to make sure that we look at the technologies available to it today so it continues to have a path forward. >> we don't use research fund for things that are already been determined adequate demonstrated, do we? we are using research funds to try to prove this out and you're using it as an example that is adequately demonstrated. it doesn't make sense to me. >> we are coordinating very close with the d.o.e. and if you have listened and heard from the d.o.e. folks today, you will know that they share our opinion about its editability and that it's been demonstrated. but it's exciting to think that we could make it more cost-effective moving forward, and that you could expand the
range of sequestration opportunities. so they are actually working very hard with the industry to continue to move that technology forward. that is only good news. that's not bad news. >> but we still don't know whether it's adequately demonstrated. >> the gentleman's time has expired. pursuant to the discussion earlier about the data divided to the committee subpoena, i ask unanimous consent to edit into the record a letter from the texas commission on environmental quality the committee received just last week that makes clear quote, that the data provided debate lacks critical information that would be impossible to replicate the findings. without objection that would be made a part of the record. we were going out to the gentleman from maryland for her questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, madam administered. i appreciate your being here and i appreciate your patience. we've heard described on this committee and throughout the
congress, frankly, questions about epa's reliance on faulty and secret science questions about epa's transparency and accountability first of all i want to thank you for the transparency and accountability the epa has provided for the volumes of data, correspondence that this committee has received. i'm just curious that sometimes the correspondence a ask for information, sometimes for documents or data as evidenced by testimony, by questions here today. i'm a strong supporter of congressional authority but i really am concerned about whether we may be overstepping our authority in terms of what the requiring of the agency. we are just one committee of many who is making these types of requests to the epa. i wonder if you could just tell me how much time and energy is spent by you and your colleagues at epa and responding to these
volumes of requests? >> congresswoman, we know how important it is to be transparent, and we will do our very best to respond to any requests that congress brings to us. it is a significant burden in terms of resources, but that's just the amount. i don't mean burden in a negative sense. we want to be open and responsive but we receive thousands of these types of requests. we do our best to answer them as expeditiously as we can. i think at times when we the difficulties is when we been asked to release dated that the epa doesn't have available to me. then it becomes an extra effort for us to try to make sure we bridge those gaps. with scientists, when we fully expect the research themselves will access that data as they've always done come and work it out that way speed and let me just ask you this because we've heard some discussion of conflict of
interest. i can understand, and we've heard testimony in the committee, that when there is peer review done and you're delving into some area of expertise, it's a very narrow area. there are only so many folks out there who have the kind of experience that you can draw upon. some of those may b be in industry, some of those may be academics who have received grants. when you assess conflict of interest and, i'm just like a chief lawyer, and so i've always thought that the idea behind conflicts is revealing this conflict, having been assessed and then making a determination about whether that conflict would prohibit performance, adequate performance, independence of performance in a peer-reviewed situation. is that how the epa looks at conflict of interest? >> that's exactly how we do that. you're right, there are opportunities or instances where we have a very narrow expertise that's not represented that's
critical to a thorough look at a science question or a tactical question. in that case we do a thorough investigation. we post the results of that so that people can know the background and we can make sure it's balanced, fair, equitable discussion. and as transparent as we possibly can be. so we do that both for folks who are the scientists as well as folks who bring their history and industry to the table. >> is that anything necessarily exclusionary, whether a person receives billions of dollars, or a company and profit from an industry, or whether a person receives thousands of dollars from the administration in terms of doing research? is there anything exclusionary about that that would prohibit service on a scientific advisory panel? >> i don't believe so. but what it really means is we
must have a rigorous and transparent peer review process. we must rigorously share that information with the public so they can, before the panel is in handled, they can offer their suggestions and comments and criticism. and we can make sure that we have the most robust, fair, comprehensive science available to us. >> i want to ask you about your work around climate change, because there's been a lot of discussion also. is it your view from the administration that you have sufficient data to back the work that you are doing around climate change? that, in fact, it's happening at that there are certain causal effects that would enable you to do rulemaking in the very? >> i believe that i have a wealth of data that is more than sufficient. i believe that the supreme court has agreed with me, which is nice. >> great. and so can you tell me about some of the rulemaking that you
are engaged in, going in that direction? and then relate that to the nation of epa of protecting our public health and the environment spent yes. the presidents climate action plan identifies reductions in greenhouse gases as well as addressing at that station and then international issues. epa is to some extent involved in all three. i think the most important i want to get it is our opportunity to reduce greenhouse gases so we can try to mitigate significant impacts associated with increased emissions in higher levels of climate change. and so what we are really looking at is first and foremost regulating greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector, both new facilities and existing. we have already issued a proposed rule for new facilities and we're beginning listening sessions and discussions on how we best put out a proposal next
june for existing facilities. the reason why we want to do this is that, is that climate change is not an environmental problem. it's a serious public health and economic problem, as well as an environmental challenge. and so what happens with a changing climate is the weather gets hot or when the weather gets hotter the ozone levels increase. when the ozone levels increase your kids go to the hospital more often with asthma. in this country today one out of 10 children have chronic asthma. we are talking about a serious public health challenges. allergy seasons extend. we are seeing health impacts from different types of mosquito and other diseases moving north as the weather gets warmer. things are changing and things are not changing for the best in terms of public health in a changing climate. it threatens the health, safety and well being of committees and
individuals. it's something we must address, and now. >> thank you very much for your testimony and thank you for the work that you do to protect all of us. >> the gentleman from illinois is recognized for his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, administrator mccarthy, for coming and testifying. i believe which are doing is important. that being said, i have a number of problems of the epa has done its job putting forward rules without adequate stakeholder input. i think it's important to point out how far we've come even according to your own data, the implication of the clean air act, aggregate submissions have dropped by 72% all of energy consumption has increased by 47%. vehicle miles traveled is increased by 165%, and most importantly gdp has increased by 219%. that is why i will continue pushing her agency today's revelations on sound scientific
pretzels and practices come make your data sets open to the public for review and to utilize commonplace statistical measures and methods, all of which epa has deemed adverse to when the facts don't necessarily necessitate what often appears to be a politically predetermined regulatory approach. as you know, section 316 b. of the clean water act requires best technology available to minimize harm to aquatic organisms living in the water that are withdrawn through cooling water intake structures for power plants. for the last three and a half decades permitted efforts have been studied necessary controls on a site-specific basis but, unfortunately, it now appears the epa is again attempting to we write the rules to expand your regulatory power. when relying on the science, epa has not been able to justify this rulemaking. this is because the cost always outweighs the benefits. her agency has recognized there will be no benefit to human
health and economic benefits for potential improvement to commercial fisheries and recreation bodies to use benefits will not justify the new rules costs i do. since the agency has been unable to justify these rules with a standard methods, i'm trouble with the idea of non-use benefits at your a now attempted to put in place. even more troubling is the way epa intends to assign values to the benefits. i think every member industry and can attest to the inaccuracy of polling and it's troubling to me the epa would turn away from science and to a public opinion poll to promulgate regulation. when epa did a survey asking how much money the public was willing to spend to save a given number of fish, the numbers predictably came back and played. in epa punted to the science advisory board. also troubling with the rule is that they could be interpreted to force power plant owners to monetize these benefits and perform surveys for specific control technologies on a
site-specific basis. although 316 b. is epa's first attempt to justify rulemaking with his willingness to pay surveys, i'm worried that this controversial methodology will encroach into of the rulemaking. if this happens public opinion poll will become the backbone of many epa regulations instead of size. i think it's important that states are allowed to continue exercising printing discretion. i'm asking, could you confirm that epa's final 316 the rule will not require states to consider non-use benefits or require plant owners to conduct willingness surveys in the permitting process? >> the final 316 b. is that the office of management and budget, so i'm constrained about getting into too much detail. but we've heard similar comments during a public process. the survey that we did was appropriate on a national level to get a handle on people's willingness to pay for the types
of improvements that these technologies would bring. we don't expect that to be the way in which they make case-by-case decisions spent i think the most important thing is basic on science and the public opinion polls. you can ask all of us how we consider about public opinion polls. it's very troubling. i have another quick question that i hope to get an answer regarding when epa plans on publishing rules, adjusting the bond requirement for the renewable fuel standard. as you know with the predictions that were made when designing the -- nothing realize those protections have not been realized her agency is to our farmers and anyone else downstream must get answers from regarding the yearly adjustment for this requirement. everyone was pleased that the first to a judgment came in a timely manner which helped to bring certainty for all parties involved. the final rule for the 2011 adjustment was published in the beginning of december 2010 and in 2012 rule came in january of that year.
what is called is how long it took epa to issue their final rule for 2013 but it can happen to the middle of august. as it's important that our businesses and farmers be able to plant ahead for this can you give this committee assurance that you focus on getting a final rollout in a reasonable amount of time this year and wanted to give a prospective date or time frame when you expect to have this rule published. ..
the sooner we can get these in, that earlier over the last few years i would just ask you for my farmers, for my business is to have it as quickly as possible. without with that i yield back mr. chairman. >> the tremendous from california is recognized for his question. >> thank you administrator mccarthy for your testimony today. to my colleagues on the other side of the idle, my colleagues and i have seen firsthand how the pa -- my constituents and i have seen firsthand how the pa and the clean air act has improved air quality and advanced public health in my district. nationally the stories are just compelling. a study by the epa shows by 2020 the benefit while way of the cost more than 30-1 improved
public health by cutting down the cases of asthma, heart disease and infant o martyrology and by 2020 was work days. they thrive with innovation pushing the industry to adopt new standards that protect the environment and improve public health and create jobs in the emergency fields. administrator mccarthy held epa rules have actually created jobs and because of dpa action. >> thank you for asking that. it helps to put the job code in more perspective. >> as we have done a considerable amount of analysis about every significant cruel looking at the job implications, we have been able to make these
considerable at the same time as we have been able to continue to grow the economy here in the u.s. it's now tops $2 billion annually. we are leaders internationally in those issues. it's because we have been moving at a concert of pace to get better and better. and that is extremely beneficial for the public health. we are talking about saving millions of lives. we are talking about improving the health of the most vulnerable populations of children and our elderly. growing jobs not taking them away and more detailed congressman, but i appreciate you asking the question because the epa is about public health, that we do it always conscious of how we can reduce the
economic impact and actually build the economy at the same time. the report which indicated an inherent conflict of interest found among members of the advisor committees. however, this report which i have right here made no sense of conclusion. rather it noted that these grants are through economic institutions where the member is employed. not the member that only a small portion of any name be paid to a member. is that your understanding as well? >> thank you congressman for raising that. >> with the discussion on the american cancer society studies i would like to enter into the record letter is the chairman received on october 30 from harvard, brigham young
university and the american cancer society these letters highlight the ethical and policy concerns regarding the release of individual health information they will be made i mated for me record for a clarification to address the epa. >> memadam administrator if i understand the science advisory committees, the industry in your opinion is adequately represented on this committee and a full balance of views. >> the members don't represent specific sectors they represent expertise and knowledge and from my experience in working with these panels provide a perspective that is necessary on
the panels so it is a broad and balanced panel when we pulled them together that is required under law and we go above and beyond to make sure that that is the case. >> so in your view there was no closed loop but open-minded panels that are not contained by a particular ideology. >> that is what we were required to do under the law and we do a good job of ensuring that it is not at all closed. it's very open. we just look for good expertise so we can get the best. >> my time is expired. >> the gentleman from georgia is recognized for his questions. >> thank you mr. chairman. administrator mccarthy, i have a very limited amount of time so please answer as quickly as you possibly can so we can get through. i want to make sure that we are on the same page but the basic principles of toxicology. one of which is to ask the aspir
both relieve a headache and 50 aspirins is a toxic dose. would you agree? >> i don't want to speak to the -- the dose is important. >> said the answer is yes. even though the particular missions have dropped 55% over the last two decades as it is noted on your website, the pa website for the air quality trends come your agency has been very concerned with the fairly low dosage of the low levels of particular matter. it has been the basis of most of your recent clean air act regulations. agency analysis suggests that hundreds of thousands of americans die from exposure every year. according to your website, quote, numerous scientific studies have linked particular particles of pollution exposure to premature death i from cancer or nonfatal heart attacks and
aggravated asthma. does the science suggest that pm can cause cancer? >> i do not know -- i cannot answer that question, sir. i'm sorry. i don't what the word suggest is and i don't know how the science would interpret that. i wait until they tell me. >> the most recent assessment stated that there was, quote, strong epidemiological evidence linking short-term exposure as measured in the cardiovascular mobility. is that true? >> i believe so. if the dosage makes the poison as you just indicated you believe they do and i do, too do you think that hundreds of thousands of people die from the particular levels at the lowest level why he has your agency conducted a series of human tests in north carolina that
exposes unknowing volunteers that have no knowledge including those with pre-existing respiratory issues -- the asthma 750 micrograms that is less than 60 times the standard. could you explain, please? >> to my knowledge we haven't done that. >> the inspector general has been investigating this and we found out about this through a freedom of information act. what these individuals and for what they were that the epa inks that it causes cancer especially since many of them came from susceptible populations the human studies work that we are doing was recommended by the national academies, it's done
with the highest ethical standards. there would be high levels of exposure is as far as a position, scientist of this is totally unethical and totally unacceptable. let me ask you one other question because my time is running out. have you sig signed up for obamacare? >> no. >> why not? >> because i'm lucky enough in the federal government that i have health care available to me which i signed up for in a few years when that is in the case i would be happy to have other available. >> it's better than forcing most federal employees into obamacare and obviously if you're not signing up you don't think you did. >> mr. tremaine i will yield back. >> the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for
questions. >> we have had some problems with the audio system. >> thank you mr. chairman and madam administrator for being here and i apologize for the raspy voice, apologies. i just wanted to start by stating welcome. it's always nice to see another member of the red sox nation and in front of our committee. >> i want to thank you for all of your hard work in the past several months and i look forward to working with you in the years ahead. i had a couple of questions if you don't mind coming in first is the initiative pertaining to my district. in the past two decades really made admirable progress attacking the contamination issues not to mention financial
ones. i come in my district in massachusetts i hear concerns about the cost of compliance with the regulations in almost every city and town. the community struggled to get back on their feet postrecession and deal with an already crippling loss of the state and federal dollars due to our budget situation here. that compliance is impossible. in 1992 the city was within overflow project and that cost them $185 million along with 8 million in debt payments every year. this is an old industrial city with an unemployment rate around 13% with an income that struggled to break $30,000 a year. similarly, looking at $100,000 a year additional spending to meet the regulations for the storm water management. the price of data that is $111 million up front.
35 million respectively in the program. they had a genuine desire to bring up the children and grandchildren and see the value of clean air and clean water. the tremendous concern about the contamination and other environmental hazards of a recounted on their own town and they know that the associated cost. but they are stuck. as a, i wanted to ask you your opinion giving assistance of the federal government can give the municipality to the compliance. and again, i have this of course given the understanding of the fiscal constraints that the government is under right now is knowing that obviously this is an issue that is important as well.
>> thank you for raising this. your voice in this discussion would be really welcomed. we are working on these issues pretty diligently primarily with the conference of mayors because all of them understand these challenges and why it's important for the public health and environmental resources that we tackle these are challenging water quality issues but we are working on this on a number of different fonts and the epa has the fund is available to support this is it enough to go around? no it isn't it's never expected to be. we try to prioritize that and make sure that we are getting the biggest bang for the buck and helping those most in need or be under strain th cities and towns and the things that they cannot deliver, but we work in partnership to find it the least cost opportunity to make
environmental progress moving forward. >> if i could step out for a moment, my understanding has been to studies that have been much discussed today. i can refer shorthand standard on the american cancer society study. would you characterize those institutions as a reputable? well-known? capable and producing well-regarded scientific studies other than the study's? >> i would. >> these two studies given the peer review? >> many times. >> by who? >> contractors and the agency through the national community. through the epa. >> and sometimes the public-private partnership? is that review all government-funded? so in fact part of that funding was done by a group that was funded by the automotive
district; is that right? thank you. i yield back my time. >> one of the shortest answers of the day, so congratulations. the gentleman from indiana. >> thank you for being here. i just wanted to make a brief statement about bias. i may surge and so i know quite a bit about health and i recently reviewed the data from the american association they put out about that particular manner and looked at the background on the fundin of ther the studies and low and behold, everything that they used was pretty much very far left leaning global warming activist foundations the privately funded these things. and in addition to that, the potential health benefits were based on computer modeling and not on actual data that a computer model projecting the results into the future dot based on actual textual data
with human studies. to make matters worse, the computer modeling was developed by an individual who had a financial stake in the success of the model going forward. in fact i have the chief medical officer from the american lung association come down from new york and discuss this with him in my office and placed my disappointment that an organization that is so highly esteemed would be using data which in my view is biased. in september or agency proposed a rule that represents the clearest although certainly not the first in the administrations war on call. in indiana but mine coal mines in the state, 88% of the solar power comes from coal and it
supports the economy added jobs and helps family put food on the table. my dad was a coal miner sweating on this industry forever. in fact i wouldn't be here if it wasn't for that. the new standards for the power plants will essentially prevent construction forever. in the first few pages of the cost-benefit analysis, you admit that this policy will result in mecca was joe changes -- negligible changes. should the government regulate the power plants in this manner if there are no benefits? that is an up or down. >> we should be regulating the co2. >> then the statement that you
made that was incorrect that there is a benefit through 2022 because in the first few pages of the cost-benefit analysis is, and i quote again, resulting negligible co2 emission changes or qualified benefits through 2022. >> which is a reflection of the industry and the market as it sits today. they should regulate that even though the pa admits there is no benefit to his? >> the issue is that it isn't being invested accept in a few instances where the carbon capture and sequestration is being invested in when we want to make sure that we take advantage of those new technologies and make sure that we do the clean air act says purchase to underpin those reductions. >> that's fair, and i think the industry would agree that constant innovation and technological advances is
something that the industry also be leads in and will invest in. that said, is the technology currently commercially available on a large scale for indiana and the midwest to meet the proposed standards? >> on a large-scale? >> you might quote the technology is available and in some academic setting or in an area of the country say where things are very close with specifically related to the co2 emission and capture, my understanding is currently there isn't a commercially available on the large-scale technology to comply in indiana with the regulation. so the regulation is in place, but there is no commercially available technology to comply. is that true or not true? >> we bb that is commercially available. is it going to be broadly disseminated at this point?
no. we don't believe so because most are natural gas facilities. they are the most competitive, but where the coal is being invested it is being invested with ccs. >> i yield back. >> the gentleman mr. peters is recognized for questions. >> thank you mr. chairman and adam administrator. i would start by saying the first job i had in college was the pa in washington dc. and i left to pursue other interests and here i am back again with you. welcome and thank you for your service. i wanted to ask about hydraulic factoring but for context i just want to call your attention to the work at the institute for strategy and competitiveness at the harvard business school michael porter and jan rivkin have done a study of what would make the united states the most competitive place to do business in the world and identified a lot of things we heard about like highly fueled -- integration of highly skilled
individuals, corporate tax reform from overseas profits come international trade, simplifying the regulation or improving the communication and energy infrastructure and creating a sustainable budget and the responsible development of american shale gas and oil reserves as an important component of the competitiveness worldwide. so first i wanted to ask you a little bit about do you think that it's possible to develop these reserves responsibly, that the epa position -- >> i believe so. >> tell me a little bit about what you think the approach should be and i want to give you time because if you look you are interested sometimes when you are trying to get answers. what should be the approach to the development of this? i would ask you to touch on two things in particular. one is the water supply on quality but also the emission of gases including methane which is
a super pollutant and also how you would avoid double regulation because there are other agencies that may be doing things that are overlapping. >> and there's a lot of state governments working on this issue as well. first of all i would want to agree with you about the importance of the expanded natural gas availability. it has been a game changer in many ways, and it is important for the national security as well as our continued ability to have all of these energy resources available to us. so, i think what the epa has been doing is in two ways one is the president has been very clear about the fact that natural gas and its availability has been incredibly important to the country. but it also needs to be done safe and responsibly. and i think the committee knows that we are working on a very large project with other agencies of the federal government to look at water
quality challenges or in patients associated with hydro fracturing and new unconventional oil and gas exploration. we are in the middle of that study. again that's very robust and we have done a lot of outreach, webinars and we are gathering as much information we can doing technical workshops. we expect a draft will be offered to peer review in the re end of 2014. so we are tracking those issues as well as responding to individual states when our technical expertise is being requested. states are also the first line of responsibility and water quality. so we want to work in partnership with them to make sure that they are able to meet their own needs and fulfill and get answers to their own questions when they arrived. on the air quality side, we have a couple things happening. we've actually already put out an air quality standard to address methane from the missions related to natural gas
facilities, natural gas exploration. in particular, tracking at which point there are a lot imitated. we can capture that and with that comes from methane. it can be used and there is inability to actually move forward in a very cost effective and actually profitable way to start gathering about methane as we are capturing the carbon's. we are looking at other questions that have been raised about what else we should do and we are looking at those issues again, working in concert with other agencies as well as state and local communities. so it has raised concerns whether it can be done or is deemed unsafe and responsibly created the epa is working with local governments in the industry to make sure that we understand how to answer those issues effectively from the science perspective and in a way that continues to maintain the availability of inexpensive
natural gas industries as well as help us reduce air emissions. >> i appreciate that and i think that seems like a reasonable response. someone at practice to their mental wall for a long time please do what you can to work with the administrations we don't have overlapping and consistent regulation. it's frustrating to the public and we want it to be done responsibly and in a way that people understand. thank you for being here and thank you mr. turman. >> determined from arizona is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. mathematica in a straight or, if i have two things i wanted to walk through it for everyone in the committee with us yesterday i'm sorry you're going to hear parts of the same thing again. on these large datasets that are used particularly in things like that pm ten which is a big deal for those in the desert southwest where we have a thing called dirt without grass. so it really does affect our lives.
why is it so controversy over to the kokomo why is it so partisan to put up the data and what i mean is down to the individual -- you and i know with all other types you are social anthropologists so when you were being vetted and doing reviews of the data you got down to the line item if there were something personal, you do it, you strip the personal data and put the datasets upon website where if a collectivist group or business group or graduate student get it onto the line item data to say here's the noise and the data but at least you have a communal international fight over this is good, this is bad and who knows, it may not yield what we think it will, but at least there is a
purifying effect of lots and lots and lots of people being able to drive their analysis through the dataset. why is that such it such a dift conversation to have around here? >> i don't think there is anything political or controversy over about making the data available. >> i should show you the tape from this committee earlier in the year where that was stunningly -- >> all that the epa is trying to do is responsibility under a member of the laws which is basically we want to be supporting to the extent we can, openness, transparency, sharing information, sharing the data. then i finished? the one thing i think that we need to have is to make sure there's a clear understanding that we have obligations to protect private information. >> but i will tell you that we
do what everyone else does. you strip the personal identifiers appear as the data set. >> we are actually asking those very same questions. >> but it's an excuse not to get the data. >> i'm not trying to offer excuses, congressman. i'm being as responsive as i can but we need to be careful in how we maintain the confidentiality. >> there's all sorts of protocols. i was involved in a very large project where we were doing analysis of how much mortgage fraud has happened in our communities. but just random identifiers and then we put it out and sent everyone studied what happened. it's not that hard, and if you are also using proprietary data inappropriate. you are making public decisions that affect the public billions of dollars may be for the good and maybe for the bad you use